Resolution 04529RESOLUTION NO. 4529
A RESCLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OFTHE] C!'1Y 017 AIZ11'1,,TZDA1
CALIFORNIA, FETITIONINa THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
TO ACT FAVORABLY UPON AND ADOPT BILL S. 940 OR H. R. K84
P Eq' N D i 1, T, G � I N T H T �,8 2 d, C 0. LN Z'11RE S S
the several states, their grant en, and'othe rs acting pursuant
to the authority granted by said states since July 4, 1776, or since the formation
of said states and their admission to the Union, have exercised full powers of
ownership of all lands beneath navigable waters within their respective boundaries
and all natural resources, including fish and marine life within state lands and
waters, and full control of said natural resources with the full acquiescence and
approval of the United Staves, and in accordance with many pronouncements of the
Supreme Court of the United States and decisions of the executive departments of
the Federal Govnrnment that such lands and resources were vested in the respective
states as an incident to state sovereignty, and the exercise of such powers of
ownership and control has not in the past impaired or interfered with, and will
not impair or interfere with, the exercise by the Federal Government of its
constitutional powers in relation to said lands and navigable waters and to the
control and regulation of commerce, navigation, national defense and international
relations; and
V, 1 -T11EH,,']AS11 t several states, their grantees and persons acting pursuant
to said authority granted by said states, including many municipalities and public
port authorities, have expended enormous sums of money on improving and reclaiming
said lands and developing the natural resources in said lands and waters in full
reliance upon the validity of their titles; and
WHEQ'LS, in the cases of the United States vs. California, United States
vs. Texas and Aited States vs. Louisiana, the Supreme Court of the United States
held that the Federal. 7,
,,over,iunent is possessed of paramount rights in and full
dominion and power over lands, minerals and other things underlying the so-called
marginal sea, and thereby made a distinction between said so-called marginal sea
on the one hand and bays, ports, harbors and other inland navigable waters on the
other, and has refused to apply the marginal sea rules of ownership which it has
heretofore applied to bays, ports, harbors and other inland waters, and held that
the coastal states have no rights of ownership in the so-called marginal sea belt
within their respective boundaries or the lands beneath it or reclaimed therefrom
or the natural resources in said waters and lands; and
WHEMAS, prior to said decisions it was juducially recognized that..the
several states not only owned the tidelands and land beneath the bays, ports,
harbors and othr inland naviw
able waters within n their respective boundaries
but also owned the lands beneath all navigable waters, including the so-called
marginal sea belt within their respective boundaries, whether inland or not, and
thst suchstateboundaries extended, at least, three miles seaward; and
1017F]REAS, in the government brief in the case of Onited States vs.
California, the theory of state ownersh! ' p of lands beneath inland F avi7able
waters is attacked as "erroneous". "unsound". "wrong", a "Mlacy' and a "legal
fiction". and it is believed that the theory announced by the majority opinion
of the Supreme Court in said case, as a basis for the decision rendered therein,
can be equally applied to all lands underlying inland navi7able waters located
in inland states as well as coastal states; and
WEEHMAS, in said California case Er. justice Reed in dissenting, said:
'Thisownership in California would not interfere in anv Wal with the
needs or rights of the United States in war or peace. The power of the
United Statcs is'plenary over these undersea lands procisely as it is
over every river, farm, mine, and factory of the nation";
M
in said Texas caae Er. justice Reed and Yr. justice hinton,
in dissenting, stated:
"The necessity for the United States to defend the land and to
handle international affairs is not enough to transfer property rights
in the marginal sea from Texas to the United States. Federal
sovereignty is paramount within national boundaries, but federal
ownership depends on taking possession, as then
he California case holds;
on consent, as in the case of places for federal use: or on purchase,
as in the case of Alaska or the Territory of louisiana. The needs of
defense and foreign affairs alone cannot transfer ownership of an
ocean bed from a state to tl-.LE,, 1'Pederal Goveriiment any nore than they
could transfer iron one under uplands from state to federal ownership.
National responsibility is no great -r in respect to the narginnal soa
than it is toward every other particle of American territory
'RE"MIA31 ;he decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
rendered in 'Cnited States vs. California, United States vs.Texas and United States
vs. Louisiana, to7eth9p with subsequent pending proceedings in said California
case place in jeopardy the ownership, use, development and control of said tide-
lands and submerged lands' togv; her with the vast improvementsth
constructed ereon;
and the theory of "paramount powers" announced by said court as a basis for the
decisions in said cases constitutes a most serious precedent that may be used by
the Rederal Gov,rrm,ent in the seizure of property rights without just compensation
guaranteed by the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution;
and
17TRIMASS the Supreme Court of the United States, in its decision of
United States vs. California, recognized that the question of ownership and control
of said submerged lands and natural resources the reir is a legislative matter in
that the court stated:
'We have said that the constitutional power of Congress in this
respect is without limitation ...... Thus neither the Courts nor the
executive agencies, could proceed ccntragr to an Act of Congress in
this congressional area of national powert
and that Congress will not execute its powers "in such a way as to bring about
injustices to states, their subdivisions or persons acting pursuant to their
permission"; and
REEFEAS, in said decisions, the United States Supreme Court, although
hold` no that the Yederal govt rrment has paramount ri7hts in and power over the
Marginal sea belt", hKo. ever, it did not hold that the Yederal 3overnnent is the
owner thereof, and it is desirable and in the public interests that Ccngress of
the United States shall exercise its constitutional powers in accordance and not
adve-sely to the heretofore recognized state ownershin of such waters and the
lands beneath them: and
WHEMAS, there is pending in the 82d Congress of the United States S. 940,
entitled, "A W11 To confirm and establish. the title of the States to lards beneath
navigable waters within State boundaries and naturAl resources within such lands
and waters and to provide for the use and control of said lands and resources",
and H. R. 4?84, entitled, "A BILL To Confirm and establish the titles of the States
to lands '.a heath navigable waters within State boundaries and to the natural re-
sources within such lands and waters, to provide for the use and control of said
lands and resources, and to provide Car the use, control, exploration, development,
and cons orvatiCara of certain resources of the continental shelf lying outside of
State boundaries", and under the provisions of each of said bills, the United
States would recognize, confirn, establish'and vest in the respective States, their
Frantees and successors in interest, title, ownership and control of all lands
beneath navigable wateiz within the boundaries of such states and in and to all
natural resources within such lands and waters; and to approve and confirm the
boundaries of the several coastal states as extending, at least, three geographical
miles Feaward of the coast line and outside inland waters, and the boundaries of
the several states on the !root Inkes to extend to the international boundaries of
the United States; and
WhEMS, a nefarious campaign to disseminate false and misleading
propaganda relating to the issues, facts, rights, equities and justice supportin''g
the basis and reasons for the onactnant of the above referr9d to legislation into
law, has been ana is now underway for the avowed purpose of influencing public
opinion and members of Congress in such a manner is to bring about the defeat of
the enactment of said legislation,
NIJV 7, BE 1 r BY TEDE, COU,CIL OF 7JEE, CITY OF AInti MEDA
as follows:
Section 1. The City of Alameda, by and through its City Council, does
hereby petition the Congress of the United States to act favorably upon and adopt
S. 040 cr H. R. 4484, pending in the Eighty-second Congress, or similar legislation,
designed to accompKsh the objects and purposes aforesaid.
Section 2. That the Congress of the United States is urged to reject
and defeat any legislation,which by its provisions will authorize and Federal
department or ale ncy to grant leases on or exercise any proprietary right in or,
to the aforesaid lands lying beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of
the states, or in and to the natural resources within such aands and waters.
Section 3. ''-,,'hat the City Attorney bo, and he is horeby, authorized to
presert to the members of Congress and the ap;ropriate committees thereof all
mattertn
ers nient tv
o faorabe n ana
laction upod doption by ConEress of S 940 or
H. R. 4454, and/or similar legislation, and in opposition to any legislation
authorizing any Federal department or agency to grant leases on or exercise any
proprietary right in or to lands beneath na-vigable waters within the boundaries
of the states or in and to the natural resources withir such lands and waters.
M
2 2 7
Section 4. That each 1-evislative body of the various states, county
nts and municipalities, an the officials of each thereof, public port
it?ZlITZ-Ies, boards of education, charters of commerce, and civic bodies and
organizations interested in the preservation of our constitutional form of
government are hereby requested to actively support favorable action upon said
legislation and take all appropriate and proper measures as shall assuis the
adoption of said legislation by the Congress of the United States.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this reso-
lution by the City Council of the City of Alameda, and it shall thereupon take
effect.
I$ the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Re"olution was
duly and regularly introduced and adopted by the Council of the City of Alameda
in rogular meeting assembled on the 15th day of January, 1952, by the foKowing
vote l to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Anderson, Branschold, Jones, Sweeney and
President Osborn, (5).
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
!Y TITNESS WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official.
seal of said City this It day of January, 1952.
(SEAL) SHIRLEY H. TENNIFE,
City Clerk of the City of Alameda
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy
of "Resolution No. 45291 A RESCLUTiON OF CITY COUM"Cii, 0].1',�1 C OF' AIJMNqT,,1'DA,,1
CALIFORNIA, PEUTIGNING ME COUGRESS OF THE UnITED STATES TO UT ALVORABLY UPON
AND ADOPT BILL S. 940 OR H. R. 4484 FENDINS IT,! T11E 82d CONGHESS", lntroOuced and
adopted by the Council on the 15th day of January, 1052
City Clerk of the City of Alameda